' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---In a pre-emption suit filed by respondent No,3 Syed. Zaki Hussain Shah, evidence of P.W.7 was recorded. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 stated before the court on 21-5- 2010 that the plaintiff came to his dera after 1-1/2 months of having sanctioned the mutation, The plaintiff filed application within three days of recording of his evidence stating that P.W,7 has in fact deposed that the plaintiff had come to his dera after six months 'of the mutation but the court has mistakenly taken it as 1-1/2 months due to noise in the court, therefore, P.W.7 be re-examined. The learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 19-2-2011. The revision petition filed by the plaintiff was, however, accepted by learned revisional court vide order dated 4-4-2011.
Hence this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the presumption of truth is always attached to judicial proceedings and the application of the plaintiff for re-examination of P.W.7 is nothing but just an attempt to improve his case which cannot be allowed, particularly in a pre- emption suit wherein time, date and place are of very much significance. Learned counsel for the petitioners avers that the order of learned lower revisional court is against the law and fact and cannot sustain, therefore, this writ petition be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the order of learned trial Court be restored.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,3-plaintiff argues that there was a noise in the court when evidence of P.W.7 was being recorded, due to which, the court has inadvertently recorded 1-1/2 months instead of six months. He further argues that the application for reexamination of P.W.7 was filed promptly within a period of just three days. Learned counsel also points out that learned counsel for the petitioners was note present at the time when the evidence of P.W.7 was being recorded. He asserts that the order impugned being in accordance with law be maintained and the writ petition in hand be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No,3 plaintiff that learned counsel for the plaintiff was not present when the evidence of P.W.7 was being recorded has no force as even if learned counsel for plaintiff was not present at the time in question but the Presiding Officer was there to hear and record the evidence and presumption of truth is always attached to judicial proceedings. The date, time and place are crucial aspects of a pre-emption suit, as such, no improvement under the garb of re-examination of P.W.7 could be allowed. If it is done so, a new Pandora box will open and each and every party of a pre-emption suit may seek amendments in the statements of its witnesses on the pretext of rectification/re-examination.
6. Admittedly, the plaintiff has given a specific date of knowledge in the plaint which has to be corroborated through evidence and if he fails to do so, the suit will fall. On the other hand, P.W. 7 did not mention a specific date but a period of 1-1/2 months. The evidence of witnesses once recorded cannot be allowed to be amended on any ground, particularly in preemption suits, because time, date and place are very crucial points in such suits. Furthermore, when statement of any witness is recorded, some rights of opposite party are created as well. The application is nothing but just an afterthought and the plaintiff in the garb of re-examination of P.W.7 could not derive any benefit. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned District Judge has fallen in error while allowing the application for reexamination of P.W.7.
7. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 4-4-2011 passed by learned District Judge, Gujranwala is set aside and the order dated 19-2-2011 passed by learned trial Court is restored.